Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Ninety-nine percent of the companions followed this
opinion, but there was one percent who believed Mut’ah can be performed
in extreme case of necessity in the land of war. This one percent is
divided into two groups. One says, it is allowed with the Caliph’s
permission, and the other says there is no need for the permission .
Those who do not believe in Caliph’s permission say that it was Umar who
made it haram. Their proof is based upon an opinion by a companion
namely Ibn Abbas. People misused this opinion of Ibn Abbas until he
clarified himself and said, Wallahi I did not mean what they did! I
meant similarly to what Allah meant when he allowed the meat of dead
animals and pork to be eaten in extreme necessity. This is referring to
the time when people abused the rule of necessity at time of Umar,
following the understanding of the one percent.

“Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict)
when he was asked about the Mut’ah with the women, and he permitted it
(Nikah al-Mut’ah). On that a freed slave of his said to him, “That is
only when it is very badly needed and (qualified permanent) women are
scarce, or similar cases.” On that, Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”

It is interesting to note that “Nida ul Islam magazine” cites no
reference whatsoever and falsely attributes this saying to Ibn Abbas!
Pork and dead animals CAN be eaten in times of necessity but such meat
remains haraam, but in the case of Mut’ah we know that it was made
permissible by Divine decree as is proved by verse 24 of Surat Nisa
[confirmed by Ibn Abbas], similarly the tradition of Bukhari
demonstrates that Ibn Abbas issued a fatwa that Mut’ah was permissible.
Even if we were to accept the argument of necessity, this is open to
interpretation and can arise in all manner of circumstances, e.g. an
overseas student may need to do Mut’ah as this is the only means to
control his sexual desire. If the Nasibi is using Qiyas to suggest that
the Sahaba only deemed Mut’ah to be used in times of need, perhaps she
could explain at the Victory of Makka as the annals of history attest
that Muslims performed pilgrimage together with their wives. Hence,
there was no extraordinary need for Mut’ah.

If Ibn Abbas held a position that Mut’ah had been prohibited by
Rasulullah (s), then why was Ibn Abbas stating that Rasulullah (s)
ordered this practise, deeming it halaal?

We read in Sahih Muslim:

“Urwa Ibn Zubair reported that Abdullah Ibn Zubair stood up
(and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the
hearts of some people as he has deprived them of eyesight that they give
religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was
alluding to a person (Ibn Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are
a rude person and devoid of sense. By my life, Mut’ah was practised
during the lifetime of the leader of pious (he meant Allah’s Messenger,
may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourself,
and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones”.

Several things are established from this tradition:

Ibn Zubayr was alluding to the fact that Ibn Abbas was blind. Ibn
Abbas became blind towards the end of his life and yet he still
maintained the position that Mut’ah was halaal even in his last days.

Ibn Abbas submitted evidence of Mutah by citing the Sunnah of the
Prophet. Ibn Zubayr offered no corroborative evidence, proving a
prohibition; all he did was cite a threat of force. This was a very
public debate, wherein the intention was to publicly humiliate Ibn Abbas
from the pulpit, in the presence of the people gathered there. If Ibn
Abbas was promoting a haraam activity, why did not a single person
gathered there seek to refute Ibn Abbas, by evidencing the alleged
Hadeeth banning Mutah? There was no reason for those opposed to the
stance of Ibn Abbas to remain silent, after all they were not under any
form of threat to remain silent, on the contrary had they stood up with
supporting evidence with which to silence Ibn Abbas, this would have
assisted Ibn Zubayr, who had got himself trapped by the comments of Ibn
Abbas. If Ibn Abbas was wrong and Mutah had been made haraam, can it be
believed that the Sahaba and Tabieen that were gathered there did
nothing to correct Ibn Abbas? Was there not any religious obligation to
correct Ibn Abbas for this deviant belief? The failure of Ibn Zubayr and
those gathered at the time to provide any nass with which to silence
Ibn Abbas proves that at that time no evidence of the prohibition by
‘nass’, the people had no knowledge of such traditions, it was outlawed
because Umar (and here Ibn Zubayr) found the practice distasteful – but
personal opinion is of no value in the presence of what is lawful in the
eyes of Allah (swt) as Ibn Abbas (ra) correctly pointed out.

The threat of Ibn Zubayr to inflict a penalty proves that his order
came at a time when he had the clout to inflict such an act, namely when
he attained brief power during the Khilafath of Yazeed. This serves as a
major proof on the lawfulness of Mut’ah, since the brief reign of Ibn
Zubayr was well after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. The view of Ibn Abbas
is clear evidence that he believed its banning to be of Umar’s own
volition and not the word of Rasulullah(s), if we are wrong in our
assertion then why the objection of Ibn Zubayr? There would be no reason
for a dispute if Ibn Abbas believed, like Ibn Zubayr, that Mut’ah was
haram.

We appeal to justice, Ibn Abbas lived almost 57 years after the
Prophet (s), and lost his eyesight in his final years, at a time when he
refuted the comments of Ibn Zubayr, so even then he upheld the validity
of Mut’ah, this destroys any notion that he had revoked his position
practising Nikah Mut’ah.

Advocates of the Sahaba may believe that Ibn Abbas corrected his
stance/clarified any misconceptions, but he maintained this stand openly
defending hisview before Ibn Zubayr’s protestations and his mocking him
to consult his mother on its legitimacy serves as ample proof that Ibn
Abbas deemed the prohibition on Mut’ah to be wrong and placed the blame
squarely at the door of Umar.

This tradition destroys another magnificent argument that had been advanced in ‘The unlawfulness of Mut’ah’ by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi:

However, there are some of those who claim that Sayyidina
Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, radiyallahu ‘anhu, believed in the lawfulness of
Mut’ah right up to his later years, although this is not so. Hadrath
Imam Tirmidhi (rahmatullahi ‘alaihi), devoting a chapter to Mut’ah, has
reported two Ahadith. The first one is as follows:.
Hadrath Ali ibn Abi Talib (radiyallahu ‘anhu) reports that the Holy
Nabi, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, on the occasion of the battle of
Khyber, prohibited Mut’ah with women and from (eating) the meat of
domestic donkeys. This Hadith-e-Sharif appears in Sahih al-Bukhari and
Sahih Muslim as well. The second Hadith reported by Hadrath Imam
al-Tirmidhi is given below:
Hadrath Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu ‘anhu) says: Mut’ah was there only in the
early period of al-Islam until the Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa
malakat aymaanuhum-was revealed. Then, he said: All private parts other
that these are unlawful (that is other than those of the legally wedded
wife and the bondwoman one may come to have).Nevertheless, this much has
to be said that Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhu) took Mut’ah to
be permissible upon a certain time. Then, it was on the good counsel of
Sayyidina Ali, radiyallahu ‘anhu (as in Sahih Muslim, volume 1, p. 452)
and under the chastening impact of the noble Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim
awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-that he revoked his earlier position, as
indicated in the narration from Imam Tirmidhi

Ibn Abbas (ra) lived many years after death of Ali Ibn Abi Talib
(as). Had Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) really forbidden Mutah to Ibn Abbas,
then is it believable that Ibn Abbas (ra) continued issuing Fatwa in
favour of Mutah when the truth had been made manifest to him? If the
alleged counsel of Imam ‘Ali (as) was indeed correct (that Mut’ah was
made haraam at Khayber) how did Ibn Abbas still believe that Mut’ah was
halaal during the reign of Ibn Zubayr? In this regards we read in Sahih
Muslim, Book 008, Number 3261:

‘Urwa b. Zabair reported that ‘Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be
pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying:
Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them
of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary
marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn ‘Abbas). Ibn Abbas
called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my
life, Mut’a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious
(he meant Allah’s Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair
said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will
stone you with your stones.

There are a plethora of Sunni traditions regarding the dispute
between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair. In light of this tradition will the
defenders of the Sahaba tell us of their opinion of Ibn Abbas? Was he a
hypocrite who knowing that Mut’ah was haraam still advocated an act that
today’s Nasibi deem prostitution? Moreover to suggest that Ibn Abbas
changed his view of Mut’ah due to the ‘chastening impact of the noble
Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum is indeed amusing,
since the tradition from Tirmidhi includes the alleged testimony of Ibn
Abbas, that ‘Mut’ah was there only in the early period of al-Islam’.
This is clearly false because this verse cited (Surah Mara’aij) was
Makkan and the practise of Mut’ah continued well after the Hijrah, and
according to Ahl as-Sunnah traditions was revoked at the time of the
Victory of Makka in the 8th Hijri! Moreover (as we have already proven
in the previous chapter) the verse that ‘changed’ the view of Ibn Abbas
(as we have already discussed) was revealed before the verse on Mut’ah
and Ibn Abbas would recite verse 24 of Nisa with the additional word
‘for a prescribed period’ to confirm that the verse was about Mut’ah!

Mufti Shafi had relied on a narration from Sunan Tirmidhi as evidence that Ibn Abbas altered his stance on Mutah:

The second Hadith reported by Hadrath Imam al-Tirmidhi is given below:
Hadrath Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu ‘anhu) says: Mut’ah was there only in the
early period of al-Islam until the Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa
malakat aymaanuhum-was revealed. Then, he said: All private parts other
that these are unlawful (that is other than those of the legally wedded
wife and the bondwoman one may come to have). Nevertheless, this much
has to be said that Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhu) took Mut’ah
to be permissible upon a certain time. Then, it was on the good counsel
of Sayyidina Ali, radiyallahu ‘anhu (as in Sahih Muslim, volume 1, p.
452) and under the chastening impact of the noble Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa
azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-that he revoked his earlier
position, as indicated in the narration from Imam Tirmidhi

The tradition can also be read in Sunan al-Behaqqi, Volume 7 pages
205-206 but it would have been better for Maulana Shafi and others who
use this tradition in an attempt to prove Ibn Abbas (ra) believed in the
impermissibility of Mutah to ascertain its authenticity. The chain
includes a narrator Musa bin Ubaydah who has been declared weak by Imam
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 226, Imam
Dhahabi in Al-Kashif, Volume 2 page 306 and by Imam Yahyah bin Mueen in
Tarikh Ibn Mueen, page 199. Imam Jamaluddin al-Mizzi records in Tahdeeb
al-Kamal, Volume 29 page 112 that Imam Nasai and Imam Tirmidhi himself
deemed him weak. Imam al-Razi records in his book Al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel
that his Hadiths are Munkar. Prominent scholars of Ahle Sunnah included
him in their books having the list of weak narrators such as Bukhari in
Dhu’afa Saghir, page 111, Abu Naeem al-Asbahani in Dhu’afa, page 135,
Ibn Haban in Majrohin, Volume 2 page 234 and Al-Aqili in al-Dhu’afa,
volume 4 page 160. Also we are informed in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 10
pages 356-360:

Ibn Hanbal said: ‘He narrated Munkir hadeeth, taking
narrations from him is not acceptable according to me, he narrated
numerous Munkir hadeeths”

Moreover advancing of this verse as evidence is also baseless as it
suggests that the only relationships that remained lawful following
descent of this verse were those with wives and slave women – we know
from ample evidence that women in Mutah relationships are also counted
as wives as this is also a form of Nikah – and hence would not fall
outside the boundaries of this verse.

Also take a look at the grave defect in the text [matan] of the cited
narration. According to this narration Ibn Abbas (ra) stated that Mutah
was Halal until the aforesaid verse revealed. If these were indeed the
words of Ibn Abbas (ra) then can any sane person answer the question as
to why Ibn Abbas (ra) was fighting with Ibn Zubayr over the
permissibility of Mutah half a century after the revelation of the cited
verse?

Reply Two – Ibn Abbas rejected Umar’s prohibition on Mut’ah during his lifetime

We are quoting from:

Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9, page 173

Aujaza al Masalik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 9 page 404

Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 3 page 381 Dhikr Mut’ah

Nail al-Autar, Volume 6 page 51, Bab al Nikah

Fatah ul Qadeer Sharh Hidaya, Volume 3 page 51

Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 4 page 221

Irwa al-Ghalil by Albaani, Volume 6 page 319

Ibn Katheer writes:

ومع هذا ما رجع ابن عباس عما كان يذهب إليه من إباحة

“Ibn Abbas never retreated from permitting donkey’s flesh and Mutah”

We read in Fatah ul Bari:

Ibn Batal said: ‘The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from
Ibn Abbas that Mut’ah is permissible. And it is narrated by a weak chain
that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. permission of Mut’ah by him
is more correct and this is the doctrine of the Shia.

“Three statements have been narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra)
regarding Mut’ah, the first one is about its absolute lawfulness, the
second is about its lawfulness in emergency and the last is about an
absolute prohibition and this is not proven unlike the first two
statements which are proven to have be stated by him. And Allah knows
best.”

“Three statements have been narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra)
regarding Mut’ah, the first one is about its absolute lawfulness, the
second is about its lawfulness in an emergency and the last is about an
absolute prohibition and this is not proven, unlike the first two
statements that have been proven to be attributed to him. And Allah
knows best.”Download the book from www.almeshkat.com

We read in Fatah ul Qadeer Sharah Hidayah:

“The position of Ibn Abbas on the permissibility of Mut’ah until his last day is proven”.

In Rasal wa Masail Volume 3 pages 53-54, Maulana Sayyid Abu’l A’lal
Maudoodi was asked whether Ibn Abbas revoked his position on Mut’ah by
one of his supporters and this was his answer:

“The comments of the people of knowledge in connection with
this are before me, and it is true that differences exist in the chapter
those traditions that I have noted do not prove that Ibn Abbas deemed
his opinion to be wrong, rather it would suggest that he had only issued
edicts in its support…

‘The people of Makka noted the Fatwa of Ibn Abbas, on the
permissibility to practise Mut’ah, although there are also calls wherein
he revoked this position, these chains are weak, whilst Sahih
traditions evidence that he deemed it permissible’ later Ibn Hajr admits
that there are differences over whether he revoked it.”

Reply Three: The students of Ibn Abbas had a better idea about his stance on Mut’ah

Whilst we have proved that Ibn Abbas remained firm on the
permissibility of Nikah al-Mut’a until the end of his life if our
opponents still argue that he changed his mind towards the end of his
life, then we should point out that his students, who are counted as
revered personalities in the Sunni school had a much better knowledge of
the stance of Ibn Abbas, which is why Saeed bin Jubayr, Tawoos bin
Kaysan and Ata bin Riayah deemed Mut’a to be Halal. We shall now expand
on this further.

The Sahaba of Abdullah bin Abbas deemed Mut’ah to be Halal

As evidence we shall cite the following Sunni texts:

Fatah ul Bari Sharh Bukhari, Volume 9 page 172 Bab Nikah

Umdah Thul Qari Fi Sharh Bukhari, Volume 8 p. 10 Bab Ghazwa Khyber

AuJaza al Masalik, Volume 9 page 404

Nail al-Autar, Volume 6 page 533 Dhikr Mut’ah

Sharh Zarqani Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 3 page 54

Tafseer Khazan, Volume 1 page 423

Al-Estidkar by Ibn Abdul Barr, Volume 5 page 506

Kanz al-Daqaiq, Volume 5 page 289

We read the following statement about Ibn Abbas in Tafseer Khazan:

فروي عنه أن الآية محكمة وكان يرخص في المتعة

“It has been narrated from him that the verse is Muhkam and he used to permit mutah”

For those who are unaware of word Muhkam, we should elaborate that
Muhkam is the type of verse that has not been abrogated whatsoever. Imam
of Ahle Sunnah Munawi records in Faiz al-Qadeer, Volume 4 page 508:

“Ibn Hajr Asqalani cites those Tabieen that gave Fatwas on
Mut’ah being halaal, they were Ibn Jurrayj, Tawoos, ‘Ataa’, the students
of Ibn Abbas, Sa’eed bin Jubair and the Fuqaha of Makka.”Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3, Page 19

“He was an exalted Imam… he had met with almost 50 Sahabah
and most of his traditions are narrated from Ibn Abbas. Many prominent
Tabaeen have narrated traditions from him”Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 9 page 305 ‘Events of 106 H’.

Sa’eed bin Jubair, Died in 94 or 95 hijrah:
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from
him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Abu
Dawood, Ibn Maja, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Imam Maalik bin Anas.Sa’eed narrates 147 traditions in Sahih Bukhari and 78 in Sahih Muslim.

‘Ataa bin Abi Riyah, Died in 114 or 115 hijrah:
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from
him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Abu
Dawood, Ibn Maja, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.‘Ataa narrates over 100 traditions in each of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Ibn Kathir while writing about Ata states in his esteemed work Al
Bidayah wal Niahayah (Urdu), Vol 9 page 339 ‘Events of 114 H’ published
by Nafees Academy Karachi:

“He was extremely Thiqa and an exalted person among all Kabar
Tab’een. He met with 200 Sahabah… Ata was a Thiqa scholar and a jurist…
Abu sabgh al Baqir said: ‘I never found a more learned Faqih than
Ata’.”

We invite those with open minds to consult the taraajim (biographical
notices) in the rijaal books for each of these 3 towering personalities
and the glowing tributes paid to them by the likes of al-Dhahabi, Ibn
Hajar al-’Asqalani, and in particular al-Mizzi’s Tahdheeb al-Kamal. Use
the index to locate the individuals.

Now that we have made reference to the esteemed rank of these three
personalities let us now analyse the magnificent words of Nida ul Islam
magazine:

Temporary marriage – i.e., Mut’ah marriage – was
permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became
haraam until the Day of Judgement.

Were Imams of Ahle Sunnah Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa advocating haraam
sexual relations? Or was it a valid difference of understanding from
the sources (Ijtihad) as legal scholars frequently have in many areas?

On these grounds, Mut’ah marriage is considered to be
zina (adultery or fornication), even if both parties consent to it, and
even if it lasts for a long time, and even if the man pays the woman a
mahr. There is nothing that has been reported in Shari’ah that shows
that it may be permitted, apart from the brief period when it was
allowed during the year of the conquest of Makkah.

Were Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa advocating zina? Or was it a valid
difference of understanding from the sources (Ijtihad) as legal scholars
frequently have in many areas? According to the quoted statement you
imply that even many Companions were, na’oodhubillah, involved in zina
(see the plethora of traditions which show Companions were involved in
Mut’ah after he demise of the Prophet (s) – some of these have been
quoted earlier). The enmity against the Shi’a makes people blind to what
they say and who else they implicate!

As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the
days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except
gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs
which were contrary to the interests of people.

Were Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa from the days of the jahiliyya, or
were they from the generation who saw, met the Companions and obtained
their religious knowledge from them – decades after the Islamic Shari’a
had taken its final form? It is clear they were from the latter and
still proponents of Mut’ah. So was it a valid difference of
understanding from the sources (Ijtihad) as legal scholars frequently
have in many areas?

It is well established that temporary marriage does not
agree with the interests of people because it causes loss to the
offspring, uses women for fulfilment of the lusts of men, and belittles
the value of a woman whom Allah has honoured. So temporary marriage was
forbidden.

Now who would tell Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa who obviously thought
that was NOT the case. And what about the noble Companion of the Prophet
(s), Jabir al-Ansaari, who himself admitted to holding Mut’ah
permissible till the end of caliphate of ‘Umar (see evidence supplied
earlier in this article)? And you say we insult the Companions?

There is no doubt that contemplation in this brief
message will find in it convincing proof that temporary marriage is
prohibited for those who believe in Allah and are free from blind
loyalty.

Did Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa believe in Allah and were they free
from blind loyalty? Why did this ‘convincing proof’ not come to the
notice of Ata’a, Tawoos and Sa’eed? Does Abu Ruqqaya possess greater
knowledge than these three Tabaeen / Fuquha? Why did these reliable
scholars of hadith – from whom Bukhari and Muslim narrate and believe
that Mut’ah was valid decades after these Companions had passed away?

We appeal to those with open minds, if (according to Ahl as-Sunnah)
all the Sahaba are stars of guidance for the Ummah, and difference
amongst the ‘ulama is a blessing, and that every scholar issues
a correct fatwa, then we appeal for justice before our Muslim brothers.
If Ibn Abbas and his Sahaba and Tabieen can be deemed as Islamic
scholars, then we see that they all ruled in favour of Mut’ah.
Why is it impermissible to follow these stars of guidance, and
obligatory to follow ‘Umar? This question becomes even more difficult to
answer when we see how ‘Umar’s fatwa completely contradicts the Qur’an
and Sunnah.